\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{float,amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,fullpage,setspace,natbib,enumerate,url,multirow,lscape}
\onehalfspacing
\begin{document}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c
 } \hline \hline
\\
Correction for Measurement Error: & No & Yes \\
\\
\textbf{Estimates of Voter Positions:}\\
\hspace{.4cm}Right Wing Vote Share & 0.83 & 0.92 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}State Liberalism \citep{EriksonEtAl1993} & 0.74 & 0.95 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}NAES Self-identification & 0.88 &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}NAES Principal Components \citep{Peress13b} & 0.94 &  \\ 

\\
\textbf{Estimates of Legislator Positions:}\\
\hspace{.4cm}Lower Chambers \citep{BattistaEtAl13} & 0.96 &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Upper Chambers \citep{BattistaEtAl13} & 0.97 &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Lower Chambers \citep{ShorMcCarty11} & 0.85 &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Upper Chambers \citep{ShorMcCarty11} & 0.84 &  \\ 

\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\caption{\footnotesize{
Validation of Estimates of the Positions of Voters and Legislators -- Estimates of the positions of the median voter in each state is correlated state ideology. Estimates of the positions of legislators are correlated with alternative estimates from \citep{BattistaEtAl13} and \citep{ShorMcCarty11}. We our estimates and the alternative estimates were commutated based on the same underlying data, we did not report correlations corrected for measurement error.
}}
\label{
ValidationTable
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c c c c
 } \hline \hline
 & \textbf{Congruence} & \textbf{Correlation} & \textbf{Slope} & \textbf{Bias} & \textbf{N} \\
\\
\textbf{Taxes:}\\
\hspace{.4cm}Alcohol & 0.516 & 0.324 & 1.319 & 0.405*** & 37 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.930) & (0.081) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Capital Gains & 0.861 & 0.471 & 0.167 & -0.863*** & 37 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.448) & (0.040) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Cigarette & 0.568 & 0.547 & 1.578+ & 0.483*** & 40 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.828) & (0.073) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Corporate & 0.373 & 0.619 & 2.167*** & -0.273*** & 46 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.557) & (0.053) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Gasoline & 0.664 & 0.004 & 1.183 & -0.480*** & 40 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (1.234) & (0.085) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Income, $<$ 75k & n/a & 0.370 & n/a & n/a & 17 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Income, $>$ 75k & 0.484 & 0.290 & 1.082 & -0.362*** & 40 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.743) & (0.066) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Property & n/a & 0.199 & n/a & n/a & 16 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Sales & n/a & 0.725 & n/a & n/a & 18 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

\textbf{Spending:}\\
\hspace{.4cm}Environment & 0.417 & -0.343 & -0.746 & 0.366*** & 48 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.486) & (0.038) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Health Care & 0.695 & 0.228 & -0.050 & 0.684*** & 45 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.448) & (0.047) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Higher Education & 0.798 & 0.404 & 0.379 & 0.764*** & 38 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.560) & (0.058) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}K-12 Education & 0.977 & 0.502 & 1.340*** & 0.965*** & 35 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.378) & (0.030) &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Law Enforcement & n/a & 0.528 & n/a & n/a & 23 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Transportation and Infrastructure & n/a & 0.144 & n/a & n/a & 20 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

\hspace{.4cm}Welfare & 0.448 & 0.083 & 0.131 & -0.386*** & 47 \\ 

\hspace{.4cm} &  &  & (0.448) & (0.039) &  \\ 

\textbf{Policy Index:} & 0.289 & 0.378 & 1.436*** & 0.159*** & 50 \\ 

 &  &  & (0.384) & (0.046) &  \\ 

\textbf{Tax Index:} & 0.404 & 0.348 & 1.966*** & -0.223*** & 50 \\ 

 &  &  & (0.575) & (0.054) &  \\ 

\textbf{Spending Index:} & 0.438 & 0.172 & 0.569 & 0.461*** & 49 \\ 

 &  &  & (0.358) & (0.032) &  \\ 

\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\caption{\footnotesize{
Representation in Elections -- Congruence, Responsiveness, and Bias of Policy Outcomes to Voter Preferences. \textit{Congruence} is the root mean square error between the estimated policy outcome or policy index and the median voter's position, corrected for measurement error. \textit{Correlation} is the correlation between the estimated policy outcome or policy index and the median voter's position, corrected for measurement error. \textit{Slope} is the slope of a linear regression where the dependent variable is a estimated policy outcome or policy index. \textit{Bias} is the predicted value of from the regression evaluated at the position of the national median voter, minus the position of the national median voter. One star indicates statistical significance at the 5\% level. Two stars indicates statistical significance at the 1\% level. Three stars indicates statistical significance at the 0.1\% level. A plus sign indicates statistical significance at the 10\% level.
}}
\label{
ResponsivenessTable
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c c
 } \hline \hline
 & (1) & (2) & (3) \\
\textbf{DV:} & \textbf{House} & \textbf{Senate} & \textbf{Governor} \\
\ & \textbf{Median} & \textbf{Median} \\
\\
Constant & -0.165 & -0.334 & -0.467** \\ 

 & (0.242) & (0.271) & (0.164) \\ 

Median Voter &  1.223 &  2.141* &  2.921*** \\ 

 & (0.962) & (1.062) & (0.731) \\ 

 &  &  &  \\ 

N & 47 & 47 & 47 \\ 

$R^2$ & 0.027 & 0.051 & 0.218 \\ 

Correlation & 0.164 & 0.226 & 0.467 \\ 

 &  &  &  \\ 

Bias at U.S. Median & -0.122 & -0.117 & -0.101 \\ 

 & (0.099) & (0.121) & (0.070) \\ 

\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\caption{\footnotesize{
Representation in Elections -- The dependent variables are the ideal points of the pivotal actors in each state and the independent variable is the ideal point of the state's median voter. One star indicates statistical significance at the 5\% level. Two stars indicates statistical significance at the 1\% level. Three stars indicates statistical significance at the 0.1\% level. A plus sign indicates statistical significance at the 10\% level.
}}
\label{
ElectionRepresentationTable
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c c c c c
 } \hline \hline
 & (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) \\
\textbf{Policies:} & \textbf{All}& \textbf{All}& \textbf{All}& \textbf{All} & \textbf{Tax} & \textbf{Spending} \\
\\
Constant &  0.330*** & 0.328*** & 0.335*** & 0.270*** & -0.053 & 0.571*** \\ 

 & (0.045) & (0.044) & (0.043) & (0.057) & (0.064) & (0.048) \\ 

State Ideology Index & -0.019 &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

 & (0.059) &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

Party Control (current) &  & 0.004 &  &  &  &  \\ 

 &  & (0.049) &  &  &  &  \\ 

Party Control (20-year average) &  &  & 0.045 & 0.210* &  0.441** & 0.005 \\ 

 &  &  & (0.062) & (0.083) & (0.140) & (0.089) \\ 

 &  &  &  &  &  &  \\ 

\textbf{South Excluded} &  &  &  & X & X & X \\ 

N & 47 & 47 & 47 & 32 & 32 & 31 \\ 

$R^2$ & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.007 & 0.101 & 0.259 & 0.000 \\ 

Correlation & 0.032 & 0.000 & 0.084 & 0.318 & 0.509 & 0.000 \\ 

\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\caption{\footnotesize{
State Government Composition and Policy Outcomes -- The dependent variables are policy indices. One star indicates statistical significance at the 5\% level. Two stars indicates statistical significance at the 1\% level. Three stars indicates statistical significance at the 0.1\% level. A plus sign indicates statistical significance at the 10\% level.
}}
\label{
GovCompositionTable
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c c
 } \hline \hline
\textbf{Year} & \textbf{Corr. w/ 2000} & \textbf{Mean of} & \textbf{Std. Dev. in} \\
& \textbf{State Opinion} & \textbf{State Opinion} & \textbf{State Opinion} \\
1998 & 88\% & 0.13 & 0.10 \\ 

1999 & 99\% & 0.13 & 0.09 \\ 

2000 &  & 0.12 & 0.10 \\ 

2001 & 90\% & 0.14 & 0.11 \\ 

2002 & 86\% & 0.11 & 0.12 \\ 

2003 & 94\% & 0.15 & 0.10 \\ 

\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\caption{\footnotesize{
Persistence of State Opinion
}}
\label{
StateOpinionTable
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c c c c c
 } \hline \hline
 & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{House}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Senate}} \\
 & Num. Bridges & $\rho$ & Per. Corr.& Num. Bridges & $\rho$ & Per. Corr. \\
\\
AK & 19 & 0.863 & 0.901 & 5 & 0.958 & 0.880 \\ 

AL & 28 & 0.842 & 0.837 & 8 & 0.719 & 0.851 \\ 

AR & 31 & 0.894 & 0.831 & 4 & 0.591 & 0.816 \\ 

AZ & 27 & 0.919 & 0.834 & 12 & 0.284 & 0.893 \\ 

CA & 26 & 0.943 & 0.933 & 6 & 0.981 & 0.941 \\ 

CO & 28 & 0.948 & 0.878 & 5 & 0.932 & 0.888 \\ 

CT & 44 & 0.658 & 0.869 & 8 & 0.834 & 0.885 \\ 

DE & 9 & 0.713 & 0.854 & 7 & 0.720 & 0.784 \\ 

FL & 29 & 0.845 & 0.916 & 3 & 0.979 & 0.885 \\ 

GA & 46 & 0.789 & 0.852 & 15 & 0.692 & 0.903 \\ 

HI & 23 & 0.691 & 0.915 & 6 & 0.894 & 0.909 \\ 

IA & 43 & 0.708 & 0.915 & 11 & 0.953 & 0.892 \\ 

ID & 20 & 0.924 & 0.825 & 13 & 0.183 & 0.839 \\ 

IL & 20 & 0.247 & 0.840 & 5 & 0.748 & 0.866 \\ 

IN & 30 & 0.864 & 0.903 & 9 & 0.939 & 0.869 \\ 

KS & 21 & 0.560 & 0.885 & 9 & 0.668 & 0.886 \\ 

KY & 29 & 0.713 & 0.836 & 3 & 1.000 & 0.887 \\ 

LA & 8 & 0.674 & 0.808 & 3 & 0.972 & 0.824 \\ 

MA & 44 & 0.371 & 0.916 & 4 & 0.858 & 0.924 \\ 

MD & 21 & 0.809 & 0.874 & 11 & 0.958 & 0.876 \\ 

ME & 58 & 0.848 & 0.848 & 16 & 0.867 & 0.854 \\ 

MI & 50 & 0.851 & 0.925 & 21 & 0.784 & 0.964 \\ 

MN & 45 & 0.896 & 0.886 & 16 & 0.859 & 0.857 \\ 

MO & 43 & 0.907 & 0.881 & 5 & 0.898 & 0.838 \\ 

MS & 20 & 0.777 & 0.841 & 10 & 0.957 & 0.839 \\ 

MT & 39 & 0.922 & 0.869 & 10 & 0.968 & 0.846 \\ 

NC & 24 & 0.642 & 0.859 & 9 & 0.846 & 0.916 \\ 

ND & 35 & 0.669 & 0.853 & 15 & 0.707 & 0.851 \\ 

NE &  &  &  & 11 & 0.614 & 0.780 \\ 

NH & 79 & 0.820 & 0.800 & 7 & 0.783 & 0.834 \\ 

NJ & 12 & 0.928 & 0.935 & 13 & 0.645 & 0.875 \\ 

NM & 20 & 0.885 & 0.890 & 10 & 0.590 & 0.874 \\ 

NV & 12 & 0.913 & 0.884 & 4 & 0.878 & 0.859 \\ 

NY & 47 & 0.738 & 0.906 & 13 & 0.918 & 0.932 \\ 

OH & 30 & 0.894 & 0.849 & 6 & 0.972 & 0.939 \\ 

OK & 28 & 0.822 & 0.875 & 4 & 0.338 & 0.860 \\ 

OR & 42 & 0.809 & 0.882 & 11 & 0.768 & 0.868 \\ 

PA & 37 & 0.843 & 0.867 & 7 & 0.556 & 0.908 \\ 

RI & 17 & -0.574 & 0.854 & 8 & 0.507 & 0.850 \\ 

SC & 27 & 0.683 & 0.846 & 7 & 0.834 & 0.854 \\ 

SD & 31 & 0.750 & 0.816 & 21 & 0.557 & 0.840 \\ 

TN & 27 & 0.775 & 0.818 & 7 & 0.820 & 0.819 \\ 

TX & 32 & 0.874 & 0.866 & 4 & 0.968 & 0.862 \\ 

US & 188 & 0.912 & 0.910 & 13 & 0.908 & 0.917 \\ 

UT & 20 & 0.901 & 0.841 & 7 & 0.946 & 0.848 \\ 

VA & 26 & 0.826 & 0.876 & 7 & 0.881 & 0.850 \\ 

VT & 29 & 0.871 & 0.855 & 4 & 0.606 & 0.866 \\ 

WA & 21 & 0.864 & 0.895 & 7 & 0.957 & 0.894 \\ 

WI & 24 & 0.852 & 0.912 & 4 & 0.838 & 0.936 \\ 

WV & 22 & 0.537 & 0.874 & 8 & 0.064 & 0.826 \\ 

WY & 25 & 0.877 & 0.818 & 6 & 0.728 & 0.800 \\ 

\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\caption{\footnotesize{
Bridging the State Legislatures -- \textit{Num. Bridges} refers to the number of legislators in the chamber that responded to the NPAT. $\rho$ is the correlation between the NPAT ideal points and roll call ideal points for the chamber. \textit{Per. Corr.} is the percent of roll call votes correctly predicted by a one-dimensional model in the chamber.
}}
\label{
BridgeTable1
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c c
 } \hline \hline
 & \textbf{House} & \textbf{Senate} & \textbf{Governor} \\
\\
AK & 49 & 23 & 1 \\ 

AL & 116 & 39 & 1 \\ 

AR & 124 & 17 & 3 \\ 

AZ & 96 & 52 & 4 \\ 

CA & 230 & 62 & 4 \\ 

CO & 160 & 33 &  \\ 

CT & 157 & 40 & 3 \\ 

DE & 44 & 18 & 2 \\ 

FL & 189 & 21 & 3 \\ 

GA & 147 & 44 & 2 \\ 

HI & 78 & 26 & 1 \\ 

IA & 86 & 36 & 2 \\ 

ID & 89 & 43 & 3 \\ 

IL & 87 & 12 & 2 \\ 

IN & 132 & 27 & 7 \\ 

KS & 109 & 73 & 3 \\ 

KY & 100 & 17 &  \\ 

LA & 65 & 26 & 9 \\ 

MA & 126 & 26 & 3 \\ 

MD & 110 & 48 & 1 \\ 

ME & 250 & 82 & 4 \\ 

MI & 227 & 53 & 2 \\ 

MN & 223 & 108 & 4 \\ 

MO & 190 & 30 & 2 \\ 

MS & 67 & 32 & 2 \\ 

MT & 154 & 38 & 1 \\ 

NC & 137 & 43 & 4 \\ 

ND & 120 & 46 &  \\ 

NE &  & 49 & 1 \\ 

NH & 314 & 33 & 4 \\ 

NJ & 141 & 74 &  \\ 

NM & 128 & 78 & 2 \\ 

NV & 64 & 23 & 1 \\ 

NY & 201 & 82 & 4 \\ 

OH & 181 & 29 & 4 \\ 

OK & 97 & 27 & 2 \\ 

OR & 124 & 35 & 8 \\ 

PA & 244 & 37 & 5 \\ 

RI & 72 & 34 & 2 \\ 

SC & 137 & 47 & 3 \\ 

SD & 123 & 64 & 4 \\ 

TN & 117 & 22 & 5 \\ 

TX & 117 & 16 & 4 \\ 

US & 1549 & 205 &  \\ 

UT & 105 & 36 & 7 \\ 

VA & 100 & 17 &  \\ 

VT & 190 & 54 & 4 \\ 

WA & 129 & 36 & 4 \\ 

WI & 92 & 17 & 4 \\ 

WV & 192 & 41 & 9 \\ 

WY & 87 & 19 & 3 \\ 

\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\caption{\footnotesize{
NPAT Respondents --- The number of respondents from House candidates, Senate candidates, and gubernatorial candidates in each state. Responses come from the 1998 and 2000 NPATs in most states, with exceptions listed in Table \ref{NPATYearsTable}
}}
\label{
NPATTable1
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]\centering\scriptsize
\begin{singlespace}
\begin{tabular}{ l 
c c
 } \hline \hline
\\
Reliability of Median Voter & 0.863 \\ 

Percent Liberal Responses, Democratic Candidates & 0.200 \\ 

Percent Liberal Responses, Democratic Voters & 0.269 \\ 

Percent Liberal Responses, Republican Voters & 0.387 \\ 

Percent Liberal Responses, Republican Candidates & 0.578 \\ 

Percent Liberal Responses, NAES Respondents & 0.320 \\ 

National Median Voter & 0.190 \\ 

Steny Hoyer-Joe Biden Distance & 0.353 \\ 

Susan Collis-Mitch McConnel Distance & 1.094 \\ 

Steny Hoyer-Diane Feinstein Distance & 0.290 \\ 

Erikson/Wright/McIver Policy-Opinion Correlation & 0.82 \\ 

Erikson/Wright/McIver Minimal Policy-Opinion Correlation & 0.44 \\ 

Erikson/Wright/McIver Maximal Policy-Opinion Correlation & 0.76 \\ 

Caughey-Warshaw Social Policy-Opinion Correlation & 0.78 \\ 

Caughey-Warshaw Econ Policy-Opinion Correlation & 0.59 \\ 

Erikson/Wright/McIver Tax Policy-Opinion Correlation & 0.47 \\ 

Grumbach Tax Policy-Opinion Correlation & -0.45 \\ 

Status Quo-Policy Correlation & 0.84 \\ 

Right-wing Vote Share 2000-2004 Correlation & 0.97 \\ 

\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{singlespace}
\end{table}
\end{document}
